II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Circuit recognizes the existence of a “strong public policy

favoring expeditious resolutions of litigation.” Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp., 889

F.2d 1078, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Nevertheless, “District courts have inherent

authority to stay proceedings before them.” Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334

F.3d 803, 817 (9th Cir. 2003). “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the

power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket

with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v.

N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). However, a “court is under no obligation to delay its own proceedings” where parallel litigation is pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). See, Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. v.

Cardiocom, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92792, 2014 WL 3107447 at *2 (N.D.

Cal. Jul. 3, 2014).

“There is no per se rule that patent cases should be stayed pending reexamination, because such a rule ‘would invite parties to unilaterally derail’

litigation.” Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 4025, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) (quoting ESCO Corp. v. Berkeley

Forge & Tool, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94017, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28,

2009)). Instead, the decision to grant a stay is within the court’s discretion, taking

into account the totality of the circumstances. See, Ethicon v. Quigg, 849 F.2d

1422, 1426-27. A “court is under no obligation to delay its own proceedings by

yielding to ongoing PTO reexaminations, regardless of their relevancy to

infringement claims which the court must analyze.” Verinata Health at *5 (quoting

ESCO Corp. v. Berkeley Forge & Tool, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94017, at *5).

This is especially true when the Patent Office has yet to decide whether to

institute IPR proceedings. See, e.g., VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759

F.3d 1307, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. American

Airlines, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102978, 2014 WL 3736514 at *1-2 (E.D.

Tex. Jul. 29, 2014) (noting that the “majority of courts . . . have denied stay

requests when the PTAB has not yet acted on the petition for review”).

The Court ultimately must decide whether to issue a stay on a case-by-case

basis. See, e.g., Asetek Holdings, Inc. v. Cooler Master Co., Ltd., 2014 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 47134, 2014 WL 1350813, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 3, 2014). In determining

whether to stay an action, a court must weigh competing interests that will be

affected by the granting or denial of a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268

(9th Cir. 1962).

In determining whether to stay a case pending inter partes review, the Court

considers three factors: (1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date

has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the

case; and (3) whether a stay would prejudice the non-moving party or present a

clear tactical advantage for the moving party. See, Netlist, Inc. v. Smart Storage

Systems, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116979, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2014); Tas

Energy, Inc. v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26107, at *8-9

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014); The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, § 18(b)(1), P.L.

112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 331 (setting out the same factors and adding a fourth to

determine whether to stay litigation pending PTO review of covered business

method patents).

“The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton

v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.) “If there is

even a fair possibility that the stay for which [the movant] prays for will work

damage to someone else,” the movant “must make out a clear case of hardship or

inequity in being required to go forward.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268 (quoting Landis,